c3k

LOL... Thanks. My point is to poke at the assumption of rational behavior by a nation state which is not, imo, run in a rational manner. I've purposely take two extremes, one being Russian belligerence and the other being Western inaction, to show that it COULD happen IF certain positions were taken. Were I a Western signatory of a defensive treaty with the Baltics, I'd put a mech battalion in each country, along the most likely invasion route, with weapons-free ROE. And I'd advertise it. That would, imo, be a HUGE warning sign saying "Do Not Invade". Shrug. That's my off-the-cuff idea. More, later, when I've had another beer.

Err, "bias" may not be the word you're looking for. If it is the word you're looking for, perhaps the thrust of my posts is being missed. Maybe you didn't see my polonium reference? Shrug. Putin is dictator of Russia. (Not saying his powerbase is totally secure, just that what he says is what happens. At least for now. (From the Latin "dictatore" or some other gerund past participle nominative form of "to dictate".) ) Dictators get to do what they want, until they die or are deposed. I'm not sure of any ever retiring... Anyway, if he thinks invading the Baltics is in his best interest, he'll do it. I'm merely dressing up how it will be done and comparing the lack of western resolve to Russian action. The western democracies are ridiculously inept at this present time. Would a Russian invasion of the Baltics change that? I don't know. I know that some Latvians, Estonians, and Lithuanians are LITERALLY betting their countries' existence on that premise. I wouldn't. How'd it work for Poland? The key for the Baltics is to make sure Putin NEVER thinks invading the Baltics is in HIS best interest. Let's take Steve's numbers for Russian military as the basis of a possible invasion. Now, let's take the numbers VaB posted for active-duty Baltic militaries as the defense force. How much would Russia have to flex to conquer them? Belarus may or may not play along. ("Just let us drive along the highway through Minsk and we won't have to invade you, comrade.") The fecklessness of western politicians CANNOT be overstated. The day Russia invaded the Crimea, western forces should've moved tripwire units to Poland and the Baltic states. Oh, how'd that treaty with Ukraine work out? Any western forces there? Any observers? Any military supplies? Yeah. Feckless. Or complicit. Shrug. The question is whether Russia has the CAPABILITY. The answer is "yes". Does it have the will? Well, that depends on Putin's mood that morning. How about the west? The argument will be given that "we can move in with lightning speed once we see the Russians moving that way." Hah! Like they disseminated no-fly information to airliners over an ACTIVE WARZONE??? They will use the excuse that their intel organs failed the decision makers. This will be AFTER the invasion. (Hey, not saying it's likely, but if it happens, that's how it'll play.) As long as the politicians have an excuse, or a scapegoat, they're happy. They can meet in Davos and discuss it over champagne. Russia has the capability. The problem for Russia is that it has a LOT of pressing problems right now. Creating a new problem (invading the Baltics) doesn't make sense to me. But then, I don't decide where Russian military forces go. Edited due to crosspostings... akd: agreed. I'd rather not have a bizarrely machismo KGB agent in charge, either. Just using examples to show how each personality shows itself. Steve: Poland in '39. Hmm, how to establish whatever it was I was establishing? Ah, the weakness of Western political will. France and England did not aid Poland when it was invaded, despite a treaty to do so. (Lots of reasons why: speed of the fall (including Soviet invasion), distance, lack of preparations, etc.) That's about all I was trying show. The historical precedence of western inaction to "eastern" problems. Is the west more alert to Putin? Maybe. What has been DONE since?

My bold in the first paragraph. Is this the same theory which shut down all trade with Iran? Using the same Navy which lost 2 boats to the Iranians? Second paragraph: Yeah, Belarus would be a possible issue. Ukraine resurgent while Russia is distracted? I don't see it. It takes a LOT more to generate offensive power than it does to be on the defensive. Right now Ukraine has mostly stalemated Russia at their current lines. That does not mean offensive parity. It means Ukraine defense is sufficient to blunt Russian attacks (at a price Russia is willing to pay). A heavy brigade in Poland is "meh". Political willpower is key. One guy is bare-chested and wrestles tigers. The other guy wears mom-jeans while riding bikes on Martha's Vineyard. If that imagery doesn't do it, just look at past practice: "Don't cross my Red lines" vs invading Ukraine. I do agree that the risk/reward seems out of balance. But then, Putin seems out of balance, too. Baltics are small potatoes compared to the issues facing Russia, especially, as you point out, with regards to China, Belarus, Ukraine, and internal issues. My point was only to show that a supposed Western defence of the Baltics is as flimsy as the West's defense of Poland in 1939. In the meantime, this makes good grist for the CMBS follow-on: Combat Mission: Baltic States. Ken

If I were Putin and wanted the Baltic States, I'd think it'd be relatively easy conquest. The key would be to get in and take over before reserves could be called up and the West could gin up enough indignant feelings to be prompted to do something. There is not enough territory to really be an obstacle. The amount of time it would take Russian forces to overrun the 3 countries is trivial. The key would be to minimize the warning time during invasion force build up, rehearsal, and concentration. The distance from border to sea is on the order of 200 miles. Russian forces could concentrate at/near Minsk, Pskov, and St. Petersburg. Call it rest/rehab for the forces involved in "novorussiya". Stage them 100 miles on the Russian border to be sure to be "non-provocative". That's a 4 hour military convoy drive, easily, including shaking out into tactical formation at the end. The Kaliningrad zone provides a buffer to south, Russia/Belorus to the east. Vilnius goes within a few hours. Kaunus by late that night/pre-dawn the next day. (time the "intervention" such that it catches the West in the evening after everyone's home.) Lithuania is down. Up in Latvia, Riga is a bit further inland. That gives them until ~18-30 hours after the convoys move. Estonia has a similar setup, with Tallinn as far away from Russia as they could get it. Toss in some seaborne landings and some helo-borne troops, and you've got yourself some new beachfront real estate. Say the invasion starts late in the day, Western political time. By the time a decision is made, Russia (or the mysterious green men who always seem to do things to help Putin), will "own" the Baltic states. Sure, there'll be some resistance, but there's not much hunting rifles can do against a tank battalion. No doubt it would be done to protect the historic ethnic Russian enclaves who are feeling discriminated against and need a "safe space". Or, to hunt down anti-Russian provocateurs. Or both. Or to protect Putin's supply of polonium so he can poison more journalists. Whatever...the reason given will be for domestic consumption and to slow down the West's response. Hey, if you can get Western media outlets to protect the rights of muslim "refugees" to rape women (it's what they're used to, and the women dress provocatively), then you can spin anything. (Not going off topic, there, but that is what has happened with some liberal news outlets. Stunning.) So, put out some flimsy excuse and release it as you move to take over. All of that is a bit pessimistic regarding Western resolve and the ability for Russia to conduct surprise maneuvers within its own borders. That's why pre-positioning allied forces is important. ESPECIALLY with loose ROE. If you've placed elements of the 82nd in, say, Estonia, but ordered them to stay in their barracks and keep their weapons locked in the armory, well, then the green men just quarantine them and perhaps escort them to a dock in Tallinn. No blood, no casus belli. On the other hand, if you have that element up on the border, gunned up, with orders to fight off anyone who threatens Estonia without having to wait for orders, well, then you'll get a fight. That fight will force US/Nato involvement. Shrug. The big question is why would Putin think such an action is in his best interest? Internal dissent is best managed by external wars. Up to a point. Ken

You are correct. I've got a lot of assumptions in my previous. Sigh. I was trying to keep this light and generalized due to the "what's the difference between AMD and intel" nature of the initial question upstream. These days unlocked are "k" for intel and "Black Edition" for AMD. (In my defense, as I glossed over all sorts of sordid and arcane details, AMD used to have all unlocked cpus. Sigh.) (As stated upstream, for most laptops, I think intel/nvidia is what most would recommend for gaming w/gpu. Purely from a power use/heat output perspective, not necessarily raw performance.)

Yeah. The i3/i5/i7 6xxx K series are the ones without fans. Sorry for the confusion. "K" means "unlocked" in intel-speak. They assume that anyone who wants an unlocked multiplier is an enthusiast and will need/want better than stock cooling solutions. My bad since I quoted the i7-6700k prices. I did not make the necessary typing effort to delineate the difference inherent in my use of that specific cpu for my example. (All AMD cpus are unlocked. Not all intel cpus are. I tried to keep apples to apples.) Ken

Absolutely agree. I was merely picking the 8 core cpus and making a point about cost and benefit. Most games (not CM) are GPU limited. CM puts more stress on the memory/cpu architecture. An i5 would be overkill for most games, these days. Regardless, I like Hister's posted NCP settings. I use a very similar setup (1/2 refresh rate), with a LOT of high-def modded artwork.

True regarding the AMD cores. They share some stuff between them, not fully independent. However, there is more "core" than intel. Again, AMD's cpus use more power (i.e., produce more heat) than Intel. Clock for clock, intel is faster. (intel 4 GHz chip is faster than AMD 4 GHz chip.) AMD has better benchmarks/real world performance in video editing software. (Lots of specifics being glossed over with that last statement.) If you're not a video specialist, intel is the way to go, unless you're on a budget. (Intel i7 6700k runs about $430, street price. The AMD FX8350 can be had for $150. No, the 8350 is not in the same class as the i7, but 1/3 the price for 85% (?) of the performance isn't bad. Heck, even if you called it 75%, it's still pretty good. Again, a lot of specifics being glossed over.) Intel no longer sells fans or coolers with their cpus. AMD does. So, take my $430 i7 6700k street price and add $35 for a cooler master hyper 212 evo (GREAT little heat pipe cooler. I forget if it comes with thermal paste.) I can't remember the last time I used a stock cooler, so I forgot to add a noise statement about them. (I prefer Noctua fans.)

LOL... some FUD going on. AMD =did= have some driver issues. So did Nvidia. (Whereas AMD's caused some stuttering, especially (particularly?) with multi-card setups, Nvidia's driver snafu famously caused their video cards to melt! Yet, Nvidia's fanbase glosses over that. I'm agnostic. I run both.) Current AMD driver series, "Crimson", is very good. So is Nvidia's. AMD gives more brute horsepower, cheaper. Think big-block Trans Am, versus Porsche. Both go fast. One is cheaper, louder, etc., the other is expensive, and uses more refined engineering to get better performance. (At ~$300-350 price point, AMD offers the R9 390, 8GB GPU. It can run 1440 pretty well. Tests show it using ~285 Watts. For the same money, Nvidia offers the GTX970. They advertise 4GB of vram, but famously lied. It's really 3.5GB + .5GB of slower ram. (This causes stuttering in some circumstances when graphics require more than 3.5GB of memory (vs. the r9 390's 8GB).) The GTX970 is not as capable at 1440. It can run it, but not at the same settings or fps as the R9 390 8GB. At 1080, they run the same. However, the GTX970 only uses about 160 Watts. If less heat is important, then GTX970 wins. However, if you run 2560x1440, and want 60 fps, then the GTX970 will force you to lower your graphics settings. The R9 390 can run maxed settings at 2560x1440/60fps.) AMD cpus have more cores. An 8 core AMD actually has 8 cores. An intel "hyperthreaded" processor can run 8 threads, but only has 4 cores. If you do multicore, cpu-intensive, tasks (video editing is the usual example), AMD cpus generally do better. Otherwise, Intel. AMD is cheaper, hotter. For a laptop, I'd go intel, purely for the cooling requirements. Ditto the video card: nvidia runs cooler than amd (lower TDP for similar performance). In a desktop, it doesn't matter. Just put another fan in the case. Nvidia has seemingly relegated OpenGL (which CM uses) to a back room. AMD seems to have done the same, but visits less often.

That. They need a good LOS to the enemy air.

If it's the battle I think it is, there is an FO behind the camera start position. Every single other unit is laid out in FRONT of the camera. Hit "V" to flip the camera. Or, pick any unit, find the Reg't HQ, then start scrolling though your units. The FO can call in the arty. Ken

^^^ Good points, but... The Medina strike had the 11th Aviation Regiment OVERFLYING an Iraqi unit by accident. The choppers thought they could transit/suppress the vehicles. Oops. Lesson learned: It's better to be in an armored vehicle than in a helo. The Longbow/Apache "D" is supposed to fight from defilade. The launcher helo(s) stay below the horizon. Only a mast is exposed for the targeting helo (be it a Kiowa or fellow Apache). Getting the helos into position to execute that tactic on a target is the hard part. Recce assets are needed. (Missing an Iraqi battalion (?) is indicative of such recce failing.) Can it work? Yes. Will it work? If a lot things go the right way, yes. I agree with the starting/final statements: CAS is too abstract, but overall BFC has it about right. There's a lot of room for improvement, but it's acceptable for now. My .02

Interesting about Soviet Airborne roles. In Kursk, several Soviet Airborne divisions were used much as JasonC stated: as fire-brigades, or solid backstop reserves. Elite (picked?) men, who were "solid" and wouldn't collapse. (In as much as that description could apply to men in combat.) The original question, the relative availability of the SVT-40 and how CMRT portrays it, still seems to be open. The consensus seems to be that it should be seen less often? As to accuracy, why are so many of them (propaganda photos?) shown with scopes? (Brevity due to thumb-typing) Ken

SFODA371, My advice is to ignore the troll's comment. One of the great services BFC provides is FREE game demos. Grab one that interests you and give it a go. (Some demos are not updated to the same level as actual games. As games get patched/updated, demos tend to lag.) The learning curve for these games is pretty steep. Lots of good folks here to offer help.

Others have stated why this game, in particular, should end. However, I thought it appropriate to mention different outlooks on ceasefires. Sometimes, I'll offer a SECRET ceasefire to my opponent. He won't know about it, but it's there if he wants to end the game. Usually I'll send an email and explicitly tell him that I'm selecting a ceasefire. Good sportsmanship would mean he would proffer a ceasefire in return. I will state in my email that I'm happy to continue gaming. Sometimes one likes to mop up every last one of a defeated enemy. I'll so state that I'm happy to be mopped. On the flip side, if an oppo offers me a ceasefire, I'll accept it immediately. Once one side has communicated "no mas", then there is no need to continue. Indeed, it's counterproductive to do so. It's not so much the ceasefire which ends the game, as the oppo's communication that he desires a ceasefire. My .02. Ken

(Minor point, not having seen what you're describing. Early US Armored divisions were, indeed, "Heavy". That was used to describe the Armored divisions with 6 tank battalions, 3 armored inf. battalions, and the rest of their arty/recce, etc. (It might've just been one that was like that. 1st?) Anyway, the rest of them soon just had 3 tank battalions, and then the rest. Yes, 6 battalions (of 57 tanks each) was a bit unwieldy. All this from memory, so caveat emptor and all that.)

Obviously, there is a time and a place for aggressive defense. I think his initial counter-punch threw you off your stride. However, now it seems more like a forward defense (meaning, he's stopped counterattacking and is sitting where he's at). Given the length of the map, I'm surprised he hasn't pulled back, forcing you to advance out of cover. Of course, the above is commentary made with both 20/20 hindsight and 20/20 clarity of both sides of the fight. Call me "four eyes". Also, I don't have a solid grasp of the map. The undulations and other bits of cover make a world of difference. It could be that Bil is in a great location. Or, it could be that he's stuck and cannot retrograde. No tactics help when a Jagdtiger is 400m away.

This says it very well. I'd like to emphasize that it was a great GAME to watch. No, this one did not go the way you wanted, but it could've. Thanks for taking the time to do such a great write-up/analysis. Ken "and we all know that Bil will be buying JTs the next chance he gets"

I think the M36s are pretty important. The Jumbos have already shown that they can bounce Panther shots. I've lost track of Bil's force. If he has 2 Jumbos and 2 M36s, then it's not as bad as it could be. JT is slow and non-turreted. Bil needs to (IMHO), pull back and focus on picking off Panthers. Once they're down, the Jumbos can destroy the halftracks at will, if he so desires. Then the remaining US forces should be able to engage the JT. At least one should be able to get a flank/rear shot. After that, it'll come down to whatever of Bil's survives to mop up the infantry/seal them off. This doesn't even need to be done aggressively. If he pulls back, he'll force Baneman to advance. That's when Bil can pick off individual Panthers. Etc. Baneman needs to keep his infantry moving, taking the objectives. His JT needs to sit in overwatch with the Panthers protecting it. It's been a good game.

LOL, yeah, I thought "Pain" and "Punishment" meant that they would cause that to the enemy, not to you. Tough beastie, that JT. You have some 90mm TDs: are they able to take out the JT? Or, are you thinking of using them to to pick off other units? Despite the fireworks of the last few turns, you still have a lot of mobile assets left and the map has a lot more space. What's your plan? Ken

Tactical lessons to be take from this battle: buy more Jagdtigers. The last few (and the next?) seem to be quite the game swinger. What are your plans/thoughts about Bil's remaining AFVs?

Of course, a comic illustrated book is much simpler to make when each panel is filled with red. Give Ian his due: his unveiling was masterful!

Stupendously wonderful news! Anyone can win a "balanced" battle. IanL has given your men a golden opportunity to prove their mettle. Allow them to die for you. They will thank you. I suggest inciting the Sturmies to fire, then use the lull between shells to charge up at them. If you don't have a jeep, use the Chaffee and just dismount the crew next to the Sturmies. It will be glooooorious!

Beautiful screenshots! Oh, and nice outcome. Well said! I didn't actually spit out my coffee, but I still think your post should get the crown... Ken